►
From YouTube: Governance and Risk Meeting: Ep. 105
Description
## Introduction
* @LongForWisdom: Hosting, Introduction, Agenda.
## Domain Updates
* Governance - @LongForWisdom: Governance at a Glance
* Smart Contracts Domain
* Oracles Domain
* Risk Domain
* MIPs - [Charles St. Louis ](https://twitter.com/charliestlouis): Weekly MIPs Update
## Procedural
* @Gov-Facilitators: MIPs Inclusion Review
## Other Updates and Presentations
* @equivrel: MIP20: Target Price Adjustment Module (Vox)
* @monet-supply: Vault Compensation Update.
* [Vishesh Choudry](https://twitter.com/visavishesh): State of the Peg
## Discussion Topics
* Continued Peg Deviation
## General Q&A
We’ll open the floor for any questions about Scientific Governance and Risk.
Please join us and help shape the future of the MakerDAO.
Website: https://makerdao.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/makerdao
Forum: https://forum.makerdao.com/
Chat: https://chat.makerdao.com/home
Email: info@makerdao.com
A
All
right,
hello,
hello,
everyone
and
welcome
to
the
maker
dao
scientific
governance
and
risk
meeting
number
105
taking
place
on
thursday
august
13th
at
4pm
utc.
My
name
is
long
for
wisdom.
I'm
one
of
the
government's
facilitators
for
maker
dao,
I'm
joined
by
a
bunch
of
mikado
people,
33
so
far,
counting
cool
so
as
always
feel
free
to
interrupt
and
speak
during
the
school.
Don't
be
shy!
A
I'll,
go
briefly
over
the
agenda.
We're
gonna
have
a
little
a
little
bit
of
a
strange
ordering
today,
because
some
of
our
presenters
have
to
one
of
our
presenters
needs
to
leave
early,
so
we're
going
to
put
lev
up
early
in
the
call
so
on
the
agenda
today.
Today,
we've
got
we've
got
domain
updates.
We're
going
to
have
lev
talk
about
mip
20.
A
we're
going
to
have
the
mips
updates.
I'm
going
to
do
the
mips
inclusion
review
we're
going
to
answer
the
glance
we're
going
to
have
money
supply
speak
about
the
vault
compensation
plan
and
the
updates
to
it,
and
then
we're
going
to
have
ashesh.
Do
your
state
of
the
pic
later
on
as
usual
as
well
cool,
so
yeah,
I
think
we're
gonna
dive
straight
into
the
domain
updates.
A
B
Late,
yes,
let
me
jump
in
here,
and
hopefully
you
can
see
me
so,
as
you
know,
we
have
the
liquidations
on
point
two
update
that
we
talked
about,
I
believe
last
week
and
if
somebody
can
can
post
in
chat,
you
know
there
was
a
forum.
Oh
thank
you
very
quickly.
What
that
does
it?
It
puts
a
cap
on
the
total
amount
of
dye
that
can
be
in
liquidation.
B
At
the
same
time,
we
think
that
this
is
a
good
thing
to
have
and
I
believe
that
the
community
reacted
favorably
to
it.
What
we
are
gonna
do
as
the
smart
contracts
team
is
take
another
week
to
you,
know
further
analyze
the
code
and
write
more
tests.
Initially,
we
we
were
a
little
bit
optimistic
and
maybe
we
said
yeah,
let's
have
that
for
next
friday,
but
you
know
looking
at
the
ecosystem
right
now.
You
know
everything
that
that's
been
going
on.
B
I
think
we
are
nobody
with
the
mind
if
we,
if
we
actually
take
an
extra
week
to
you,
know,
do
extra
testing
to
show
these
tests
to
the
community.
Maybe
there
are
more
people
that
want
to
look
at
our
solution,
so
that
is.
That
is
the
the
first
item
that
I
wanted
to
talk
about,
that
we
are
not
going
to
go
with
it
this
weekend.
B
Oh,
no,
no-
and
the
other
thing
I
wanted
to
add
to
address
was
the
failed
spell
from
last
week
the
one
that
that
reduced
the
wbtca
debt
ceiling
to
zero,
and
in
fact
this
was
this
was
not
unlike
what
happened
with
the
with
the
hands
right.
There
was
a
mismatch
in
the
units,
and
so
it
was
pretty
serious.
The
good
thing
is
that
the
bug
worked
in
our
favor
this
time,
so
it
could
have
been
the
other
way
and
you
know,
increase
the
debt
ceiling
to
astronomically
large
number.
B
In
this
case,
the
debt
ceiling
was
already
reached.
The
only
thing
that
happened
is
that
it
could
create
new
die
from
wbtc,
almost
exactly
as
as
it
was
before,
and
then
a
new
spell
came
out
and
fixed
it,
but
that
did
prompt
us
in
the
smart
contracts
team
to
be
more
thorough
with
our
reviews,
so
we're
gonna
be
sharing
shortly.
B
All
of
the
steps
that
we're
gonna
be
taking
to
ensure
that
this
doesn't
happen
again.
I
think
we,
this
is
the
speaking
personally
right.
We
got
a
little
bit
complacent.
Just
you
know,
week
after
week
of
thursday
afternoon,
we
got
the
the
results
of
the
polls.
We
do
a
spell,
do
a
review
and
then
deploy
on
friday.
B
If
this,
you
know
the
length
of
time
that
the
smart
contracts
team
has
to
write
the
spells,
if
it
is
sufficient,
because
it
is,
you
know
under
24
hours,
and
this
also
doesn't
really
give
the
community
itself
enough
time
to
review
these
spells
right,
but
rest
assured
that
we're
we're
adding
to
our
to
our
methodology
to
ensure
that
it
doesn't
happen
again.
Right
and
yeah
expect
more
in
the
forums.
And
if
anybody
is
you
know
in
the
community
is
somewhat
technical
and
and
is
up
for
reviewing
the
spells.
D
No,
no
real
updates
from
our
end
we've
been
so
we
put
out
the
blueprint
evaluation
last
week
and
then
this
week
we've
just
been
strategizing
for
liquidations
1.2
parameters
and
also
kind
of
reviewing
some
other
general
system
parameters,
things
like
circuit,
breaker
and
then
what
else?
I
think
that's
about
it
for
us.
A
C
E
You
might
have
heard
of
this
as
as
negative
interest
rates,
which
is
sort
of
the
the
the
the
the
one
phrase
description
of
what
it
is,
and
obviously
it's
proposed
sort
of
in
the
wake
of
the
issues
with
with
the
peg
and
the
limitations
of
monetary
policy
around
the
zero
rates
kind
of
lower
bound
that
we're
currently
subjected
to.
I
would
just
like
to
kind
of
highlight
a
few
things
about
this
mip
before
proceeding
with
the
discussion.
E
The
first
thing
is
that
the
this
is
a
technical
mip.
This
is
not
a
well
actually,
I'm
not
sure
what
the
other
kind
of
myth
is.
But
basically
this
is
this
is
a
technical
map
that
would
give
governance
the
the
option
to
adjust,
adjust
the
par
parameter
in
the
system,
which
is
what
decides
how
how
much
for
accounting
purposes,
one
one
die,
is
worth
in
usd
which
can
be
used
as
a
mechanism
to
affect
you
know
effective,
negative,
negative
interest
rates,
which
is
currently
not
possible.
E
However,
there
is
support
in
the
core
for
adjusting
the
usd
value
of
a
die
in
the
system,
which
is
why
it's
possible
to
make
this
mip
and
make
make
us
technically
make
this
modification
without
changing
the
core
system.
So
this
is
just
a
very
lightweight
small
component
and
I'm
sure
that
any
of
the
sort
of
people
who
are
familiar
with
smart
contracts
would
agree
with
me
that
it's
it's
technically
speaking,
it's
not
an
intrusive
change.
E
So,
of
course
you
cannot
completely
separate
technical
considerations
and
general
governance
considerations
in
the
system.
So
I'm
not
claiming
that,
because
it's
a
technical,
mip
there's
nothing
to
discuss
outside
of
the
technical.
Obviously,
we
still
need
to
decide
whether
or
not
this
is
something
the
government
would
potentially
want
to
use
and
what
the
ramifications
of
that
would
be.
E
E
This
gives
you
the
technical
tools
to
create
negative
interest
rates,
but
how
you
would
actually
use
negative
interest
rates
and
how
that
sort
of
modifies
your
current
monetary
policy
process
is,
is,
is
kind
of
you
know
up
for
up
for
discussion,
and
obviously
it
is
possible
to
you
know,
implement
this
myth
and
not
make
use
of
it,
but
it's
it.
You
know
it'd,
obviously
be
ridiculous
to
say
that
you
should
like
consider
technical
mips
on
technical
merits
only
or
something
like
that.
E
So
the
next
thing
is
just
that
you
know.
Technically,
the
changes
proposed
in
this
mip
are,
I
would
say,
quite
well
understood,
because
target
price
adjustment
was
actually
part
of
part
of
the
plan
for
multiple
actual
die.
For
for
a
very
long
time,
so
if
you
actually
look
in
the
purple
paper,
for
example,
or
in
earlier
implementations
of
multiple
actual
die,
they
actually
included
a
module
which
would
adjust
the
target
price
of
die.
So
this
is
not
a
new
invention.
E
This
is
just
a
an
implementation
of
something
that's
kind
of
been
in
the
folklore
for
a
while.
Additionally,
what
a
lot
of
people
don't
know
is,
if
you
look
in
in
psi
in
in
our
in
our
previous
iteration,
single
clause
will
die
that
actually
had
a
a
target
price
adjustment
module
built
into
it
from
the
beginning,
which
was
actually
just
dormant
because
the
parameter
was
was
set
to
zero.
E
E
E
Based
on
that,
so
I
think
trfm
is
actually
really
a
vastly
more
complicated
thing,
which
is
a
lot
more
difficult
to
study
in
in
tpam
is,
like
a
you
know,
very
simple
version
of
it,
which
just
allows
us
to
set
a
fixed
price
adjustment
rate.
Similarly
to
how
we
set
a
fixed
stability
fee.
Today,
we
don't
have
any
special
algorithms
for
automatically
adjusting
the
stability
of
real
time.
We
just
say
it's
going
to
be
two
percent
or
it's
gonna
be
four
percent
or
it's
gonna
be
zero
percent.
E
Similarly,
this
would
allow
you
to
set
a
fixed
rate.
You
know
same
sort
of
units,
you
know
zero
percent.
You
can
make
it
positive
two
percent.
You
can
make
it
negative
minus
two
percent
and
that's
the
rate
at
which
the
price
of
time
will
adjust.
You
know
if
you
look
at
actual
actual
mip,
there's,
obviously
more
details
in
the
discussion
of
why
that's
you
know
effectively
equivalent
to
or
can
be
used
to
just
to
kind
of,
create
effective
negative
interest
rates.
E
Last
comment
about
about
motivation,
as
I,
as
I
kind
of
said
in
the
beginning,
where
you
know
monetary
policy
has
this-
that
we're
currently
inactive
has
a
zero
lower
bound
where
we're
not
able
to
decrease
stability
fees
on
a
on
a
collateral
type
below
zero.
Even
though
we're
able
to
use
these
negative
base
rates,
the
base
rate
is
just
an
abstraction
that
allows
you
to
essentially
just
set
the
stability
fee
to
be
lower
than
the
risk
premium
on
a
collateral
type.
E
So,
instead
we
need
something
like
gpam,
which,
which
accomplishes
a
negative
interest
rate
by
changing
the
price
of
diet.
So
you
know
I
have
to
answer
questions
about
that.
If
that's,
if
it's
not
clear
but
but
that's
the
main
idea-
and
obviously
this
is
also
the
most
controversial
thing
about
this
proposal
is
because
it
does
create
a
sort
of
a
departure
from
the
world
where
people
think
of
the
target
price
of
dies
always
being
one
dollar.
E
So
the
price
of
the
target
price
of
diet
would
be
slowly
going
down
from
from
a
dollar,
and
this
would,
you
know,
presumably
be
used
as
a
monetary
policy
tool
to
deal
with
situations
like
what
we
have
today,
where
sort
of
market
equilibrium
for
diet.
Even
in
fact,
you
know,
zero,
effective
rates
is,
is
still
not
not
doing
with
the
price.
What
we,
what
we
want
and
die
is
still
trading
above
the
target.
E
So
it's
been
in
this
phase
for
about
a
month,
and
I
think
we
kind
of
should
continue
to
have
this
discussion
for
for
as
long
as
we
see
necessary,
but
definitely
like
you
know,
for
example,
another
month
or
two,
so
that
everyone
is
so
all
the
points
have
been
covered.
So
this
would
be
a
good
time
to
to
to
start
so.
Please,
questions.
F
Hey
thank
you
for
that.
I
just
want
to
chime
in
brian
from
the
smart
contracts
team,
I've
looked
over
the
box
and
I
just
want
a
second.
What
lev
said
that
it's
a
very
simple
implementation:
it
just
tacks
onto
the
existing
system
and
uses
the
the
existing
handles
to
to
make
changes.
Technically,
it's
not.
I
don't
think
it
would
be
very
controversial,
so
I
think
the
discussion
would
probably
be
around.
C
Die,
I
I
have
a
technical
question
about
the
implications
for
implementers
of
this
people
that
have
made
you
know,
and
possibly
even
in
our
code
or
informal
verification
at
some
point,
if
we've
ever
made
bad
assumptions
on
die,
always
being
a
dollar
rather
than
doing
the
calculation
of
you
know,
diet
and
par.
So
I
wasn't
sure
if
there
would
be
you
know,
some
rough
edges
on
integrations
especially
sort
of
immutable
contracts
that
already
out
there
that
may
have
made
this
bad
assumption.
E
That's
a
good,
that's
a
good
question
so
when
it
comes
to
to
our
system
when
it
comes
to
maker
dow,
to
my
knowledge,
the
there
is
never
there's
ever
an
assumption
that
one
die
is
worth
one
dollar.
Instead,
this
par
value
is
always
carefully
used,
or
you
know.
At
least
that
was
the
intention,
so
you
shouldn't
see
like
one
somehow
hardcoded
anywhere,
and
that
would
be
a
bug
even
today,
when
we're
not
when
we're.
C
E
Adjusting
par
that,
I
would
see
that
as
a
book
in
particular
like
one
of
the
places
where
it's
used
is
in
the
global
summit.
Module
end
you'll
see
there
that
it
kind
of
carefully
calls
par
from
from
the
spotter
to
make
sure
that
that
we're.
Actually,
you
know,
respecting
the
correct
reduction
value
of
die
and
I'm
not
aware
of
any
other
places
where
that
needs
to
be
considered,
but
when
they
come.
E
E
Remember
that
this
is
a
monetary
policy
tool
and
the
goal
of
which
is
to
reduce
the
purchasing
power
volatility
of
die
right
like
that's.
The
goal
of
monetary
policy
is
to
ultimately
make
diets
price,
more
predictable
and
less
volatile,
and
you
know
while
well.
The
target
price
of
giant
adjusting
away
from
one
dollar
is,
is
you
know,
is
a
level
of
you
know?
Is
an
unpredicted
unpredicted
change
that
you
could
see
as
volatility
right.
E
Ultimately,
it's
done
with
the
goal
of
reducing
reducing
volatility
and
when
we're
not
able
to
reduce
volatility
with
conventional.
You
know
monetary
policy
that
we
have
available
today.
We're
also
failing
in
that
in
that
job
right.
So
basically
like
these,
these,
these
other
integrations
that
might
be
affected
by
this
would
aren't.
They
also
hurt
by
you
know,
having
die
trade.
D
E
I'm
very
glad
you
asked
this
because
there's
actually
there,
you
know,
there's
a
feature
in
this
mip
which
is
new,
which
I
didn't
mention
is
you
know
documented
in
the
mip
itself,
which
is
not
present
in
things
like
trfm,
which
is
sort
of
you
know
prior
existing
stuff
and
that's
a
that's.
The
ability
to
set
a
target
price
cap
and
the
the
reason
that
I
am
proposing
that
this
be
included
is
that
it
actually
allows
you
to
backpedal
out
of
out
of
this
target
price
adjustment
later.
E
If
we
want
to
and
the
way
that
works
in
practice
is
in
addition
to
setting.
Let's
say
we
want
to
do
negative
interest
rates,
so
we
start
off
by
you
know.
We
we
add
this
thing.
We
add.
We
set
the
target
price
adjustment
to
be
minus
two
percent
per
year.
That's
effectively
a
a
two
percent
negative
interest
rate
on
die.
We
can
also
set
a
target
price
cap
of
one
dollar,
which
is
the
current
target
price.
E
Later,
let's
say
you
know,
let's
say:
monetary
policy
is
in
a
different,
you
know,
is
in
a
different
situation
and
now
we're
actually
able
to
normalize
rates
to
be
positive
again
right,
like
let's
say,
maybe
the
for
farming
mania
kind
of
stops,
or
we
start
you
know
actually
generating
a
lot
of
dye
from
new
real
world
asset
platform
types
and
so
on,
and
then
we
actually
start
setting
positive
rates
again.
Well,
then,
we'll
have
the
ability
to
set
a
positive
target
price
adjustment
rate
and
combined
with
this
one
dollar
cap.
E
It
will
actually
get
capped
at
exactly
one
dollar
and
then
you
can
switch
off
the
target
price
adjustment
and
then
essentially
you'll
be
where
back
where
you
started,
and
I
will
be
you
know,
the
target
price
of
diet
would
be
exactly
one
dollar,
not
not
like
99999
with
some.
You
know
with
some
decimal
junk.
E
D
E
H
C
E
It
would
it
would
just
be
in
there,
so
we
would
be
back.
You
know
the
situation
we
are
now.
Obviously
this
assumes
that
if,
in
the
future
we
have
positive
rates,
we
would
prefer
to
just
basically
go
back
to
one
dollar
and
then
stop
doing
this
target
price
adjustment
stuff,
rather
than
enacting
positive
rates
through
positive
target
price
adjustment.
That
remains
to
be
seen
but
there's,
but
there's
there's
strong
reason
to
believe
that
that's
available
right.
You
mean
positive.
E
C
E
This
is
the
biggest
difference
between
this
proposal
and
one
of
the
important
differences
between
this
proposal
and
saying
something
like
let's
implement
trfm.
If
we
commit
to
implementing
trfm.
That
truly
is
like
a
path
where
we
basically
never
well,
we
don't
have
a
clear
way
to
come
back
to
to
a
dollar,
that's
really
sort
of
wandering
off
into
the
into
space.
This
this
proposal
is
sort
of
you
know
intended
to
address
this
concern
by
giving
us
a
way
back.
A
All
right,
okay,
sorry,
I
just
got
to
cut
the
discussion
short,
but
we've
got
a
whole
bunch
of
other
things.
We
need
to
go
through
this
meeting
as
well.
So
thank
you
love
for
discussing
that
and
everyone
for
their
comments.
I
would
suggest
if
you
have
further
comments
or
further
questions.
You
asked
them
on
milk20
on
the
forum
post,
which
we've
linked
several
times
yeah.
So
thank
you
all
all
right.
C
A
What's
up
guys
I'll,
do
you
guys
quickly
and
then
we'll
go
through
cool,
okay,
so
active
discussions?
This
week,
there's
been
some
discussion
around
the
liquidation
system.
1.2
upgrades
that
mariano
discussed
earlier
and
there's
a
forum
thought
about
that's
where
charles
kind
of
describes
what
it
is
and
how
it
will
kind
of
change
the
liquidation
system.
A
A
Yeah,
I'm
aware
like
every
not
everyone
has
time
to
come
to
like
two
meetings
every
week
or
like
multiple
meetings
a
week.
But
if
you
have
us
for
a
second
and
want
to
kind
of
learn
a
bit
about
how
we
might
add
like
real
estate
to
splash
all
on
maker,
I
would
give
it
a
lot
to
give
a
watch
cool
the
essays
on
youtube.
A
So,
to
encourage
people
to
kind
of
kind
of
read
that
over
and
discuss
kind
of
the
merits
and
potential
downsides
of
flush
minting,
which
is
very
exciting,
and
then
we
had
three.
I
think
we
had
three
signal
requests
or
three
polls
which
are
on
chain.
Starting
monday,
we
had
the
dust,
parameter,
increase
the
pate
risk
premium
increase
and
the
surplus
auction
buffer
increase,
all
of
them
passed
the
unchained
poll
and
will
proceed
to
the
executive.
This
week.
A
I
I
So
this
week
is
a
little
bit
of
a
shorter
update
due
to
some
time
constraints,
but
I
will
include
all
the
other
details
with
recent
mips
activity,
working
group,
stuff,
other
proposals
and
requests
for
comments
and
so
on.
In
the
weekly
maps
update
I
post
on
the
forums.
This
one
is
just
more
about
the
immediate
steps
for
this
week
last
week
and
collateral
onboarding.
I
I
The
declarations
of
intent
for
four
guidance
posted
by
akiva
also
passed,
but
the
lrc
collateral
onboarding
work
requirements
and
ended
up
getting
rejected
by
quite
a
big
difference.
So
those
are
the
results
and
today
long
will
confirm
those
ones
that
pass
and
that
they
will
be
included
in
the
governance
poll.
The
following
monday.
I
So
next
week's
activity
is,
the
governance
poll
will
be
live
with
those
two
sub-proposals
on
monday
and
it
will
run
for
three
days
ending
on
thursday
at
noon.
Est
as
usual
and
long
will
then
confirm
the
results
of
the
government's
pull
to
decide
what
will
be
included
in
the
final
monthly
mips
executive
vote
going
on
monday
or
august
24th
in
terms
of
cloud
onboarding.
So,
as
I
mentioned,
lrc
was
rejected
to
continue
through
the
monthly
cycle.
I
I
That
is
the
end
of
this
presentation,
but,
like
I
mentioned
I'll,
be
doing
the
forum
post
with
a
lot
more
details
regarding
all
the
progress
on
the
mips
and
sub
proposals
and
rfc
phase
conception,
et
cetera,
as
well
as
the
working
group
updates
for
mips
17
debt
ceiling
adjustments,
but
yeah.
That's
it
for
today,
thanks.
D
I
want
to
I
want
to
make
one
comment.
I
feel
like
yeah
say
something
about
the
blueprint
evaluation
being
rejected,
but
it's
kind
of
hard
to
say
anything
when
is
is
kind
of
one
large
maker
whale
voter
who
voted
against
it
and
there's
isn't
really
a
good
conduit
for
public
feedback
from
anonymous
voters.
So
I
I
kind
of
don't
want
to
speculate
actually
on
why
it
was
rejected.
But
I
think
it
would
be
an
interesting
discussion
on
if
there's.
E
C
D
A
A
A
All
right,
I
guess
I'll
briefly
breathe
through
the
admits
conclusion
review,
just
to
kind
of
confirm
much
answered.
The
the
13
c3
supervisor,
1
declaration
intent
for
forward
guidance,
pass
the
inclusion
poll
and
we
will
be
included
in
next
week's
kind
of
governance
bundle
poll
as
well.
The
sub-proposal
for
off-boarding
richard
brown
as
governor
facilitator,
so
yeah.
A
A
C
G
All
right
so
just
giving
a
quick
update
on
the
compensation
plan
and
kind
of
the
status
where
we're
at
right
now
I'll
repost,
the
presentation
as
well.
So
everyone
can
just
read
over
this
later
up
to
this
point.
So
we've
had
an
initial
vote
on
april
6th,
which
had
about
two-thirds
support
in
favor
with
about
a
hundred
thousand
mkr
voting.
Our
first
vault
compensation
plan
attempt
had
a
lot
less
participation
and
then
also
ended
up
about
25
kmkr
against
versus
17
in
favor.
G
G
G
G
So
that's
one
change
in
the
plan.
The
perspective
rate
that
I
had
had
landed
on
to
suggest
is
basically
trying
to
match
it
up
with
the
the
flop
auctions
and
and
the
clearing
price
from
those
back
in
march,
which
I
believe
was
around
250
die
per
mkr
roughly.
If
anyone
else
has
you
know
other
opinions
on
a
fair
reference
price
in
that
regard,
of
course,
hop
on
the
forums
next
up,
so
basically
just
trying
to
like
eliminate
as
many
steps
as
possible.
So
the
these
last
two
bullet
points
on
this
slide.
G
Basically,
just
I
think
the
the
previous
plan
involved
like
two
or
three
executive
votes
in
like
four
or
five
polls,
something
like
that.
This
plan
slims
it
down
a
lot
trying
to
reduce
governance.
Overhead,
I
think,
is,
is
probably
the
most
important
factor
there,
so
just
to
run
through
the
revised
stages
really
quickly
and
they're.
They're.
G
This
is
kind
of
the
meatiest
part
of
the
plan
here.
So
in
the
previous
fault
compensation
plan,
there
were
a
lot
of
different
parameters
that
mkr
holders
were
choosing
in
this
plan.
We
we
kind
of
slimmed
down
the
options
a
little
bit
so
mainly
they're,
just
choosing
what
percentage
of
vault
compensation
level
that
they're
okay
with
and
then
the
other
difference
with
this
first
poll
is
that
it
consolidates
the
approval
for
the
plan
itself
with
deciding
the
level
of
compensation.
G
My
reason
for
wanting
to
do
it
this
way
is
that
there
were
no
votes
in
the
last
time
which
prevailed,
but
it
was
tough
to
tell
whether
they
fell
into
like
these
last
two
bullet
points
which
one,
whether
they
just
oppose,
compensating
vaults
on
principle
or
whether
they
in
principle
are
supporting
of
compensating
vaults.
But
they
just
didn't
like
the
way
that
the
plan
was
set
up
or
you
know
for
one
reason
or
other.
They
didn't
like
it
for
some
other
reason.
G
G
C
G
You
know
if,
particularly
if
it's
like
more
than
like
60
000,
that
voted
in
favor
of
vault
compensation
back
in
april
if
it
gets
to
the
last
bullet
point
the
the
opposed
plan,
but
like
supported
in
principle.
That's
that's
where
it
gets
a
little
bit
tougher,
and
I
mean
I
think
if,
if
that
ends
up
getting
you
know
more
than
50
support.
G
H
H
So
hopefully
you
guys
can
hear
me
well,
I
just
wanted
to
say.
However,
this
goes
wherever
people
sit,
we
really
need
a
strong
signal,
one
way
or
another.
On
this.
We
kind
of.
To
my
mind,
this
is
something
we've
kind
of
worked
on
as
a
group.
I
think
people
are
thinking
about.
We
don't
really
have
a
clear
signal
that
this
is
important
to
settle
one
way
or
another,
and
we
really
want
that
signal.
Whichever
way
it
goes.
H
So
that's
my
first
point
second
point
is:
is
that
we
kind
of
change
the
method
to
be
this,
the
sky
method?
And
so
when
you
look
at
the
numbers,
as
the
percents,
no
vault
is
going
to
get
that
actual
percent
as
in
collateral
compensation,
even
with
the
make
or
die
numbers
at
250..
So
when
you
see
like
six
percent
and
you
vote
for
that,
no
vault's
gonna
get
six
percent
back
just
the
way
that
the
compensation
that
we
altered
this,
and
so,
if
you.
A
H
To
give
them
six
percent
back
you'd
vote
for
twelve
okay,
and
so
it's
just
a
detail
here
that
the
way
the
numbers
come
up,
the
way
that
we're
doing
it.
The
reason
why
we
do
it
is
a
difference
between
what
they
got
back
and
and
what
we
want
to
give
them
is
because,
if
they
already
got
us
back,
they've
already
got
the
ride
up
and
they've
had
some
of
their
stuff
back.
But
if
they
got
nothing
then
the
question
is
kind
of
how
much
do
they
really
get?
H
And
then
these
numbers
don't
really
reflect
that.
What
they
reflect
is
an
attempt
by
picking
a
number
to
distribute
the
compensation
that
would
be
distributed
kind
of
fairly
across
all
the
people
that
didn't
get
that
percentage
back.
That's
all
it
does,
and
so
those
are
the
two
points
and
I
really
want
to
encourage
kind
of
voter
turnout.
I
know
transaction
fees
are
high.
I
will
be
voting
my
tiny
amount
of
maker
just
because
I
think
this
signal
we
need
to.
H
A
All
right,
yeah
yeah,
thank
you!
No
mega
man
and
money,
certainly
for
that,
like
I'm,
just
gonna
kind
of
briefly
reiterate
what
I
guess
with
money
and
make
amount
of
set
just
kind
of
around
the
point
home
yeah
we're
getting
to
the
point
where
this
is
kind
of
just
like
dragging
on,
and
we
need
to
know
clearly
whether
it
is
something
that
people
still
want
or
if
it
is
something
that
people
have
now
realized.
A
You
know
it
isn't
worth
the
trouble
and
I
think
either
direction
is
fine,
but
we,
as,
as
the
other
said,
we
kind
of
really
need
that
clarity,
because
otherwise
it's
going
to
keep
like
dragging
on
right
until
we
get
that
clarity,
this
issue
isn't
going
to
like
just
go
away
really
because
you
know
everyone
is
I
mean
they.
The
conversation.
The
affected
boat
holders
are
still
sort
of
complaining
in
the
forum.
A
You
know
it's
there's
not
really
justification
to
just
drop
it
completely
without
a
vote
that
says
so
because
of
the
initial
vote
which
voted
in
favor.
So
we
kind
of
really
need
a
signal
that
kind
of
you
know
they
can
kind
of
direct
like
sort
of,
or
can
help
us
kind
of
get
a
clear
direction
going
forwards
yeah.
So
I
would
thank
you
all
for
keeping
that
in
mind
make
my
journal
say
that
last
point
on
the
on
the
call.
H
However,
much
maker
to
raise
died,
then
for
them
to
what
by
us
in
it's
like
give
a
maker,
let
them
buy
us,
do
whatever.
So
it's
we
just
thought
it
would
be
easier
for
government,
since
we
can
mint
maker,
at
least
according
to
c
mooney,
it's
kind
of
an
easy
out
and
the
effective
dilution
wherever
we
go
on.
This
is
going
to
be
on
the
order
of
a
percent
give
or
take
or
less
depending
so
it
just
seemed
easiest.
A
G
The
compensation
plan
I
mean
basically
as
part
of
claiming
compensation
people
will
go
through
a
ui
which,
where
they
like
you,
know,
e-sign
a
disclaimer
saying
that
they're
not
gonna
sue
maker
of
the
foundation,
whether
that's
enforceable,
probably
not,
but
just
in
principle
as
part
of
claiming
compensation
people
are,
are
attesting
that
they
won't
do
that.
But
you
know
legally,
they
probably
still.
G
A
A
Okay,
it
doesn't
sound
like
there's
any
other
urgent
questions,
so
yeah.
I
would
encourage
people
to
to
kind
of
read
over
the
plan
on
the
forum,
we'll
organize
a
poll
for
it,
probably
in
the
next
couple
of
weeks,
but
we'll
make
sure
the
poll
lasts
longer
this
time
and
the
previous
almost
three
days.
That
was
probably
a
little
short,
so
we're
gonna
probably
push
it
up
to
something
like
two
weeks
like
in
the
same
way
as
the
clash
royale
onboarding
calls.
D
A
J
J
So
you
know
we
saw
this
sort
of
continuing
based
linear
trend,
and
then
we
saw
a
bit
of
a
spike
when
some
of
the
initial
yield
farming
opportunities
started
to
crop
up
and
then
those
leveled
out
a
bit
and
then
there
was
a
massive
acceleration
with
a
lot
of
the
wi-fi
type
opportunities
and
basically
in
the
last
week
or
so
that
has
slowed
again
a
bit.
So
things
you
know
could
potentially
reach
somewhat
of
a
steady
state.
I
don't
think
any
of
the
recent
projects.
J
J
J
You
know
a
bit
on
the
higher
end,
around
50
million,
so
again,
trending
upward,
but
very,
very
spikey.
So
I
had
to
continue
to
watch
that
wbtc.
So
this
wasn't
quite
completely
capped
out.
There's
still,
you
know,
say
13
million
room
in
the
debt
ceiling
there,
but
it
it
does
have
this
sort
of
stepwise
usage.
So
again,
a
few
large
users
that
initially
kept
capping
it
out.
J
It
seems
that
the
amount
minted
is
still
sitting
around
66
million,
but
but
that's
not
been
capped
out
this
time.
So
that's
something
to
to
keep
in
mind
is
you
know
unclear
if
that
is
the
amount
of
demand,
that's
currently
there
for
minting
guy
from
wbtc
and
it's
been
met
or
if
this
would
continue
to
rise,
giving
it
a
little
bit
more
time,
because
it's
only
been
a
couple
of
days
so
again
we'll
have
to
watch
that
as
far
as
bat.
J
So
you
know
let's
back
up
here.
Basically,
there
is
not
a
lot
of
usage
and
then
you
know
a
couple
million
in
usage
and
then
small
fluctuations
in
between,
but
it's
more
or
less
kind
of
sitting
close
to
close
to
three
million
dimented
from
bat,
not
a
huge
margin,
but
you
know
it's:
it's
seeing
decent
percentage-wise
utilization
of
that
debt
ceiling,
so
probably
managed
well
as
far
as
so
as
far
as
the
collateral
portfolio.
J
So
what
we've
seen
is
the
eth
collateral
portfolio
has
gotten
a
bit
less
risky,
but
also
east
price
has
gone
up
so
in
in
nominal
terms.
It
feels
users
have
not
done
much
with
their
collateral
there,
but
naturally
their
collateralization
has
been
pushed
up.
There's
a
huge
wall,
that's
kind
of
nestled!
J
Actually
I'll
talk
about
the
walls
down
here.
So
basically,
if
you
look
at
around
an
eighth
price
of
240
you'd
be
liquidating
133
million
diets.
So
this
is,
you
know
your
largest
wall,
probably
the
biggest
thing
to
sort
of
keep
in
mind
manage
against
there's
smaller
walls
around
285
and
330
is
not
even
worth
mentioning,
so
I
would
say
around
any
price
of
285.
J
You
know
you'd
want
to
be
pretty
decently
concerned,
because
even
given
a
400
plus
million
die
supply,
the
a
33
million
liquidation
is
probably
still
pretty
significant
for
the
amount
of
market
liquidity
out
there
to
get
the
btc
so
another
thing
to
to
sort
of
keep
in
mind.
So
as
far
as
the
die
price
goes
where
to
adjust
perspectives
here
for
a
second,
so
there
is
some
crazy
slippage.
Events
on
the
10th
on
unit
on
uniswap
a
bit
on
oasis,
but
overall
in
the
last
few
days.
J
J
But
I
don't
want
to
believe
her
too
much.
I
think
we've
gone
over
the
broad
strokes
and
I
think
the
design
is
to
sort
of
introduce
these
points
for
discussion
and
double
click
on
things
where
we
need
to
just
one
point
is
of
the
400
or
so
quarter:
420
million
die
that
has
been
minted.
We
have
roughly
247
million,
that's
locked
in
the
dsr
sort
of
by
virtue
of
supplying
two
protocols
and
then
being
locked
back
up.
I
mean
we
look
at
compound
still.
J
This
is
just
a
alliance
shared
chunk
where
you
have
about
250
million
in
compounds,
so
that's
where
basically,
that
number
comes
from
so
this
is.
This
is
still
dominating
what
is
currently
going
on
in
terms
of
die
supply
all
right.
I
will
stop
there
and
then
happy
to
answer
any
questions
as
part
of
the
discussion.
A
G
A
Good
question,
so
I
think
the
first
step
we'll
be
trying
we
at
least
attempting
to
find
out
why
it
failed
in
the
first
place.
Obviously,
as
cyrus
mentioned,
that's
somewhat
difficult
at
the
moment,
there's
always
at
least
the
chance
that
the
whoever
voted
it
down.
You
know
comes
and
says
something
at
some
point
other
than
that
by
the
mips
process.
You're
allowed
to
resubmit
the
same
proposal
or
proposal
up
to
three
times
without
changes
without
significant
changes.
A
F
F
C
A
C
A
Yeah,
I
think
that's
a
good
point.
Like
gas
prices
are
gonna
prevent
most
small
makeovers
from
voting.
I
would
think
one
thing
is
that
I
believe,
like
derek
from
the
foundation,
is
working
on
a
new
version
of
the
governance
dashboard,
which
I
believe,
but
don't
quote
me,
will
include
batch
voting,
so
you'll
be
able
to
vote
for
multiple
things
in
one
transaction,
so
that
might
help
alleviate
that
somewhat.
At
least.
A
I
I
think,
there's
been
a
couple
of
flight
forum
posts
recently
about
talking
about
this
issue
as
well.
I
think,
like
el
pro
posted
one
kind
of
asking
whether
you
know
the
community
or
the
press
corps
should
reimburse
voters
for
the
transaction
fees
incurred
when
voting
and
I'm
not
entirely
sure
that
would
work
in
practice.
But
it's
it's
worth
discussing.
A
F
F
A
Yeah,
I
think,
there's
a
kind
of
good
suggestions
and
it's
the
sort
of
thing
where
I
I
think-
or
at
least
I
hope
that,
like
things
like
this
happening,
will
kind
of
help
larger
make
holders
realize
that
if
they
don't
vote
for
stuff
like
collateral
onboarding
things
like
that,
then
there's
a
good
there's
a
chance
that
they
just
like,
won't
happen
right.
So
so
yeah
I
mean
I
kind
of
agree
that
it
is
disappointing
to
see
rc
fail
after
the
work
was
done,
especially
considering
it
passed
the
green
light
pole.
A
Originally
I
mean
there's
always
the
chance
of
this
happening
right
like
if
someone
like
would
like
to
see
an
asset
on
board
it's
in
principle,
but
when
seeing
like
the
the
output
of
the
risk
evaluation
or
the
smart,
conscious
evaluation
or
the
oracle's
evaluation,
then
kind
of
decides
that
actually
you
know,
maybe
that's
not
the
best
idea
right.
You
know,
that's
always
like
a
possibility
and
it's
like
a
valid
like
thing
to
decide
right.